Punjab & Haryana High Court: HC Seeks Reply From Haryana Government And NCBC For Not Reviewing Reservation Every 10 Years

Punjab & Haryana High Court: HC Seeks Reply From Haryana Government And NCBC For Not Reviewing Reservation Every 10 Years

The Punjab-Haryana High Court has sought response from the Haryana government and the National Commission for Backward Classes (NCBC) on a petition challenging the use of reservation for politics and not reviewing the reservation given on the basis of the Mandal Commission report reported amarujala.

Snehanchal Charitable Trust, while filing a petition, told the High Court that according to the guidelines of NCBC and the Supreme Court in Indira Sahni and Ram Singh case, it has been clarified that reservation should be reviewed every 10 years. Despite this, the review has not been done till date. After independence in India, when the provision of reservation was made in the constitution, it has been used for politics till now. The number of castes getting reservation for vote bank is increased but no caste is excluded from it. The petitioner said that while implementing reservation, a provision was made to review it every 10 years, but no one did this work.

The Mandal Commission report for reservation in Haryana was adopted in 1995 and on the basis of this report Schedule A and B were prepared. It was also said in this report that the reservation given to backward classes should be reviewed in 20 years. The petitioner said that the report of this commission was adopted after 15 years in 1995 and therefore it should have been reviewed in 2000. But till 2017, 37 years have passed but no review was attempted at any level.

The petitioner said that the NCBC and the Supreme Court in the Indira Sahni case have clarified the entire process for collecting and reviewing data for the reservation system, but political parties have not adopted it to serve their interests. Kamboj Commission was formed in 1993 and Gurnam Singh Commission was formed in 1999. In all these, it was said to include some castes in the backward class, but on the basis of figures, no one was asked to be excluded. The petitioner said that since 1951 only castes have been included.

The High Court had asked the petitioner on this what can be done about it. The petitioner said that while collecting data afresh, it should be seen which caste needs reservation and which does not. This process should be followed every ten years. The petitioner said by way of example that since 1951, 71 castes have got reservation benefits under the backward classes and till now not even one of these castes has progressed.